rendelharris

Toffee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I take it that none of you ever fly? Why are you > so bothered about the aircraft noise here but not > bothered about the aircraft noise in the countries > you visit? Some xountries have aircraft literally > all but landing on the beach! Says it all: not in > my back yard. Think about it and please come on > here and tell me you've never flown anywhere, or > if you have, do you give a damn about aircraft > noise elsewhere. So worried you all are about the > world - no, how damn selfish and u > Inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting > for replies. I stopped flying in 2002 as a conscious environmental decision and since then have only taken my holidays in the UK or Europe by train. I'm not actually bothered at all about "in my backyard" aircraft noise over ED, but I know that near Heathrow, Gatwick and City it is intolerable, and we're all breathing in the pollution. So there's a reply for you to get unnecessarily aggressive about.

Well let's hope not and that the poor people living round the airport are saved some of the increase. However, the rich and powerful are not renowned for their unwillingness to pay silly money if something increases their sense of self-importance - look at the number who would pay five times the cost of an ordinary flight to save three hours by flying Concorde. If it was sold as a luxury service (with only eighty passengers per plane they could certainly make it spacious) saving two or three hours compared to Heathrow I could imagine enough mugs paying for it.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What fresh hell is this? > > http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/foodanddrink/v > egan-blue-algae-coffee-is-the-latest-hipster-trend > -that-will-probably-come-to-london-soon-a3294996.h > tml Coffee that has no coffee in it. I'm increasingly coming round to the point of view that it's time to scrap the human race and start again from protozoa.

Think those are ordinary miles you have there, Santorini is 1430 nautical miles - but yes, you're quite right that Moscow is slightly closer. The devil is in the detail further down in the article I linked, I think, where the manufacturer says the new plane will be able to fly direct to Dubai, considerably further than either - if they can get that working from City that's got to be where the real money is.

I'm no expert - just an idiot with Google, frankly - but this would seem to contradict that, Bombardier saying they've specifically designed the new aeroplane to be able to reach Moscow from London City: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2016-07-13/c-series-can-do-lcy-nyc-or-moscow

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The runway isn't being extended at City so the > planes are not going to be any bigger than the > ones currently in use. They will actually be bigger as they will be accommodating new larger wingspan planes with longer ranges, however this will allegedly be offset by the fact that these planes are quieter. It'll be the increase in numbers which will really hit local residents - can't say aircraft noise bothers me much but I really feel for the people of Newham. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/city-airport-200m-expansion-gets-go-ahead-but-campaigners-say-it-will-create-ghettos-and-misery-10022363.html

Good sign seen in a US bar lavatory, presumably to avoid the wet floor issue: "STAND CLOSER. IT'S SHORTER THAN YOU THINK."

mynamehere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are making yourself ill. Operative word is > you and I say that with concern for a stranger who > has posted something really heartfelt. Between > the hours of 8 and 22 children can kick balls. And > people can get on with how they live their lives. > Details about that family's life are not up for > conversation whether they should / could go to the > park or to a club. > > Wear ear plugs in the morning and evening. Find > white noise solutions. > > But first and foremost walk away from the corner > you have painted yourself into emotionally. > > From 10 to 5 be out and about. Museums, walks, > picnics, day trips. > > Stop thinking about your neighbours and how they > live. > > This is written with concern for you. > > Read happy books and laugh and watch movies you > like. > > Being positive is harder than being negative > that's why evil does in fact win. Talk to friends > who don't just reinforce the hate you've > surrounded yourself with. You're making massive assumptions about matters here. If what the OP says is true, his/her neighbours are being deliberately vindictive - if they're not how come the antisocial behaviour unit intervened to agree to a (albeit temporary) suspension of these activities? Note the OP is not trying to tell them to stop "kicking balls" in their garden, just asking that they stop belting balls against the back fence. Sounds reasonable enough to me. However, whether or not the OP's complaints are justified (and they ring true as far as I can see), telling him/her that s/he has surrounded him/herself with hate and that s/he should face the problem by being out of the house for seven hours a day is not exactly helpful. "Read happy books and laugh and watch movies you like?" I mean really. You seem a good person who's genuinely trying to help, but not all problems in life - especially those caused by the behaviour of others - can be solved with admonitions to pull oneself together and cheer up.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was also eight years old at the time. I'd been > packed off to a relatives for a week because my > mum was about to give birth to my younger brother > who was born the day before we won the World Cup > at Dulwich Hospital. Attending a 50th birthday bash Saturday for a mate who was not only born on the day of the final but actually during it. His mother reckoned she never saw the same doctor or nurse for more than five minutes as his appearance approached as they were running relays from the T.V. lounge...

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As the law (an ass) stands.. If I had picked up > some of the rubbish and 'Missed' a piece, I would > of been responsible > if someone slipped on a piece I had missed.... > .. Like clearing slow from your path.. and the > postman slips on the ice... you are better off > leaving it be. > > We are all aware that clearing snow from your path > leaves you responsible.. and it is better to leave > it to melt . Bit of an urban myth that one, stirred up by the Daily Mail every time it snows. Government advice is: "Don't be put off clearing paths because you're afraid someone will get injured. Remember, people walking on snow and ice have a responsibility to be careful themselves. Follow the advice below to make sure you clear the pathway safely and effectively. And don't believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully." I certainly can't conceive of any legal situation where picking up other people's litter and missing a piece would make you liable for any accident involving that piece (I hope not as I regularly pick up street litter). On the other hand, if it's inside the Co-op, why the hell should you do their job for them?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pretty sure there was a direct service, > because I was mega pissed off when it started. > > I used to work in Islington and it was a pain in > the **** to get to from ED, so that service would > have saved me hours of commuting ...... > > Sadly I left the job before the train started > running ..... I stand corrected by Mrs H - when she was working up near H&I four years ago apparently there was a direct train from Denmark Hill. My bad.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slight distraction - but has the Denmark > Hill/Peckham Rye train to Highbury really stopped > running straight-through ? > I checked a week or so ago and it looks like now > the only way to make the Overground train journey > is by changing at Canary Wharf. Hasn't it always been like that? Certainly there are no direct trains on the current timetable (from May 15th) but as far as I recall it's always been necessary to change at one of the stations between Canada Water and Dalston Junction to get to H&I. Perfectly willing to stand corrected but I really can't remember there ever being a direct service - and I was living in Denmark Hill when the line opened.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The food is served already plated ? > > Right there's your 'problem' Lou Yep, bang down four or five serving dishes, everyone helps themselves and each other, no questions of precedence - and it makes for a more convivial atmosphere as well.

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 😴 Thanks for that, well done.

You're sort of both right - Fox is right about the frequency, but of course the noise precedes the planes and lingers after they've passed, so (from our garden at least) the actual periods of silence do only last twenty to thirty seconds.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclists, quite rightly, don't have any precedence > in a park. Did anyone read what I asked in the first place? I simply asked if it would be possible for walkers not to take up the whole of the perimeter road so that cyclists wouldn't have to keep stopping for them. Not asking for precedence, special treatment or anything else, just asking if one group of park users could share the amenities sensibly with another. Apparently in most people's view this is an entirely unreasonable request.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think you are doing the right thing Sue.. It would > be a safer place for everyone if ALL new cylists > took a few lessons. > Safer for them and safer for pedestrians. Too many > people jumping on a bike 30 - 40 years since they > last rode one as a kid. > Well there is a lot more traffic these days. > > Good on you. > > Foxy Second that Fox - inspired by Sue's mentioning it Mrs.H is going to take the same course.

richard tudor Wrote: > There you are plenty of scope to continue > responses. Am sure I have got something wrong. > Await your red pen No thanks, there are plenty of clever, entertaining, polite and witty people on here - including some whose views are diametrically opposed to mine - with whom to enjoy sensible debate. Ooh you did sting me with the comment about not really living in East Dulwich though, that hurts so badly, crying into me beer as I type. Give it a rest, is my advice.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > richard tudor Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > You really are becoming boring now > > > > > > How very charming of you to say so - if you > don't > > want people to respond to your posts, don't > post. > > You know as well as I do why you're being so > rude > > - go and get your "friend" Dullywood to pitch > in > > on your side like before! > > "You know as well as I do why you're being so > rude" > > Why and who is Dullywood? You know, the person who joined the forum when you were called out by me (and several others) for making racial implications about who was responsible for knife crime? The person who joined the forum that day, left a message defending you and hasn't been seen since? Nothing to do with you, of course...or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you aren't trying to take petty revenge for that - maybe you're just a naturally rude person? http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1660848,page=2

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really are becoming boring now How very charming of you to say so - if you don't want people to respond to your posts, don't post. You know as well as I do why you're being so rude - go and get your "friend" Dullywood to pitch in on your side like before!

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps cyclists should employ the skiing rules > always look ahead. > > If you have to stop or avoid so be it. > > There are more children, people and dogs than > pedal pushers. They are not aware of danger. As it > should be in a park So although cycling is legitimately permitted in the park, and of course cyclists have to be aware of all potential hazards (and we (me and Mrs H, not all cyclists, I admit) are), nobody else has to look out for them but should do exactly as they please no matter what inconvenience or risk to fellow legitimate park users? That's one point of view. My point of view is that I think it would be rather nice if all park users (as 90% do) looked out for and were considerate of all other park users, whether walking, running, cycling, horseriding, rollerblading or whatever. That we we could all enjoy the park together instead of one group clashing with another - no matter what the ratios. That, I think, would make for a happy community we could all enjoy, instead of an "I can do this so I will" attitude.

keane Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a park that's the whole point, it's nice to > be able to walk around it & not have to be > squeezed onto a pavement as you are when you are > on a normal street! Unless there is a designated > cycle path I don't think you can argue that bikes > should take priority over people enjoying walking > around the park and actually it is nicer to walk > on the middle of the path rather than the sloping > uneven pavement section. The velodrome is > available down the road for proper cycling with no > fear of pedestrians in the way! I didn't ask for priority, just that perhaps, as it's a shared park where cycling is permitted, some dog/children walkers (a small minority) could show a bit more consideration for cyclists by not taking up the width of the roadway and keeping an eye on kids/dogs to stop them putting themselves, and cyclists, in danger. There's plenty of room there for everyone if we share nicely, was all I was saying, though it seems some people have interpreted that as saying I want to run a Tour de France stage through the park.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well not my point at all RH - actually suggesting > exploring and using your newfound love of cycling > to do my than laps around the Rye.... > > In fact I would struggle to see how you could > gleen such hostility. > > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jules-and-Boo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > you could even take your bike on a train and > > cycle > > > around somewhere new - and less busy. > > > > So rather than cycle round our local park - to > > which after all we do contribute as council tax > > payers and in which cycling is fully permitted > - > > being courteous, aware and respectful of other > > park users and hoping for the same in return, > we > > should take a train elsewhere? Hmm. Strange assumption to make about my love of cycling, seeing as I've been mad keen on it for thirty years, across the UK and across Europe, I've done my fair share of exploring, thanks. As I said above, Mrs.H doesn't want to cycle on the roads so Dulwich Park is the ideal place for her to potter round.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BBC London have been reporting on this, but > despite repeated questions and calls, the > managagement have yet to reply > > Not very 'on message' for a public service > management team to not comment, or to assure > people the child is ok > > Pretty crap really Well, on the Twitter feed linked above they did say the girl is OK and that they can't discuss it further until they have investigated.

TheCoalLine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it possible to change the name of a thread > please? How do i change it to "The Peckham Coal > Line Urban Park"? The crowdfunding completed last > November so its a bit misleading now - thanks. If you go to edit on your first post the subject line is also editable.